Preamble

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER: made the following communication to the House:
I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the Right Hon. Hastings Bertrand Lees-Smith, Member for the County of York, West Riding (Keighley Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GRAND UNION CANAL COMPANY.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18lh December]:
That the Grand Union Canal Company be relieved from the obligation to promote not later than the Session of 1946 a Bill to consolidate the Acts relating to the several parts of their undertaking and the obligation to promote not later than the Session of 1944 an Amending Bill with a view to facilitating the task of consolidation, being obligations to which the Company are subject by virtue of a promise given in the proceedings before the Committee to which the Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Grand Junction Canal. Purchase) Bill was referred in the year 1928 as varied by Resolutions passed by this House on the 12th day of July, 1932, the 27th day of July, 1937, and the 27th day of June, 1940.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Mander: Up to the time when the discussion upon this Motion ended yesterday the Chairman of Ways and Means had not given us any reply to the points which had been put to him, and I feel that some further explanation of the position is necessary. If a company are under an obligation to pass a consolidating Act, that is a good thing in itself, and there must be some adequate reason for releasing them from the obligation in peace-time. I quite understand that in war-time there would be no desire to press them to do it, but the Motion would absolve them from the

necessity of doing it at any time in the future. The Chairman of Ways and Means said yesterday:
The reason why the request is made depends to some extent on the war situation, but not entirely so.
He went on to say:
I am fully satisfied that it is quite impracticable for this to be done, at any rate during the war period. I am satisfied also, though there might be differences of opinion on it, that it will really be impracticable for them to do it even after the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1941; col. 2057, Vol. 376.]
So it does appear that there is some doubt whether after the war it would be possible for the company to pass a consolidating Act, and if there is any possibility of their doing so, I should have thought it was a right and proper thing for the House to insist upon that obligation being carried out.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): I did not say anything about this in formally moving the Motion yesterday, because I made the only statement which it was practicable to make in the time which was available. I understood the Motion would be objected to, and, as the hon. Member knows, if objection is taken to a Motion, it cannot be considered at this time.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Debate to be resumed upon the second Sitting Day after 18th January.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HOME GUARD (BATTALION COMMANDERS' EXPENSES).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of of State for War whether his attention has been called to the expenses necessarily incurred by battalion commanders of the Home Guard, many of whom are poor men; and will he arrange that essential out-of-pocket costs be met by the Government?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): Existing instructions already provide for the reimbursement of


essential out-of-pocket expenses by Home Guard commanders. If my hon. Friend has any particular item of expenditure in mind, I shall be glad if he will let me know, in order that it may be considered.

Mr. Hannah: Do the Government desire that poor men should be able to have commissions in the Home Guard?

Mr. Sandys: Very definitely.

Mr. Hannah: Thank you.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the hon. Member have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that these out-of-pocket expenses are not included in the assessment for Income Tax, as is done in the case of the Royal Observer Corps?

Mr. Sandys: I will leave it to the hon. Member himself to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Davies: I cannot convince him.

WELFARE FUNDS.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the sum per month allotted by the War Office to the Army Welfare Fund for each county for the provision of sports equipment, comforts, furniture and necessities for troops stationed in the county area?

Mr. Sandys: Welfare funds are allotted to General Officers Commanding Home Commands in proportion to the number of men under their command. The total sum allotted for this purpose in the current financial year amounts to £70,000. There is also a grant of £5,000 to the Director of Voluntary Organisations to assist in the provision of wool to be knitted by these organisations into comforts for the troops. In addition a special grant is made in order to provide extra amenities for Auxiliary Territorial Service personnel who are posted to anti-aircraft units. Welfare funds are not intended to be spent on necessities, which are a normal Army provision.

Sir A. Knox: Does the hon. Member realise that the allowance of the War Office to the Welfare Fund in one county that I know of amounts only to £10 per month, which is absolutely inadequate to provide real necessities for the anti-aircraft troops, who have no regimental funds such as well established units have?

Is it not urgently necessary to increase this amount? Some counties are very generous, but others are not, and the men are suffering.

Mr. Sandys: I think the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The Welfare Funds are not in the main provided through the Territorial County Associations, but, as I said in my answer, are provided through the General Officers Commanding in each of the Home Commands.

Sir A. Knox: But in the county of Berkshire they get only £10. The welfare officer has only £10 a month to spend. Apart from that, they depend upon charities, and a lot of these units have not even chairs.

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that is the case.

EX-OFFICERS (CALL-UP).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers who relinquished their commissions after the last war and are now called up under the National Service Act will rejoin the service in their former rank?

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir. The normal rules for promotion to commissioned rank apply to all men called up for military service under the National Service Acts, but any special qualifications that a man may possess as a result of previous military experience will naturally be taken into account in the selection of candidates for commissions.

Sir A. Knox: Were not these officers told when they relinquished their commissions that they could retain their rank, and are they to be degraded now?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and gallant Member is referring to officers who relinquished their commissions after the last war. A great deal has changed in the methods of warfare, training and weapons since then, and it does not necessarily follow that an officer who gave up his commission at the end of the last war is fitted, without further training, to step straight in as an officer in the present war.

Sir A. Knox: How are the War Office going to get out of the promise to these men that they should retain their rank?

Mr. Sandys: No promise was ever given that those men would be re-employed in


the Army in the rank which they had when they left.

Major Vyvyan Adams: Does this mean that an officer who had the rank of captain at the end of the last war can be called up now under the new Act as a private?

Mr. Sandys: That is a fact. But in view of his past experience he will naturally be watched very carefully, and if considered suitable, he can, with very little delay, be posted to an officers' training unit and so receive a commission once again.

Sir Reginald Blair: Is my hon. Friend aware that officers who had relinquished their commissions at the end of the last war were told that they would retain their rank?

MISSING SOLDIERS (TRACING).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the present position in regard to the organisation and personnel for tracing the missing in various theatres of war; and whether he is satisfied with the work done?

Mr. Sandys: In a theatre of war the task of tracing soldiers who are missing rests in the first place with the unit. Commanding officers of units report the names of missing men to Force Headquarters, where further inquiries are made. At the War Office a special section of the casualty branch is responsible for conducting inquiries for the missing. Apart from these channels of investigation, the missing man's comrades who are prisoners of war, are asked through the Protecting Power where, when and in what circumstances he was last seen. Valuable information is often supplied by the civil authorities and Red Cross societies in the territory where the operations took place. In cases where the territory is under enemy control, this information is collected and forwarded to us by the International Red Cross Committee in Geneva. In addition inquiries from patients in military hospitals are conducted by a panel of voluntary workers organised by the British Red Cross Society and Order of St. John.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is it not a fact that there is really no organisation to do this work at the present time, and that it has been done by two or three voluntary workers of the Red Cross, who are zealous men but have now resigned from office,

disillusioned because they cannot get any encouragement from the Red Cross authorities? Will the hon. Gentleman not get the War Office to take over this work? I can give him some evidence as to the facts.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member seems to think that the responsibility for tracing the missing rests with the British Red Cross Society. That is not so. The War Office is and always has been responsible for this service. While it is very grateful to the British Red Cross Society for such additional help as it is able to give, the War Office has in no way farmed out its responsibility to any outside organisation.

AERODROMES, MALAYA (DEFENCE).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War why, after the experience of Crete, inadequate steps were taken to protect the aerodromes in Malaya; what action has been taken in regard to the officer or officers responsible; and whether the War Office is responsible for similar defence in Burma?

Mr. Sandys: All steps possible, within the resources available, were taken to protect aerodromes in Malaya. In all cases, the loss of aerodromes has been the result of a general advance of the invading forces. As far as I am aware, aerodromes have not been singled out for detailed attack by air-borne troops. The situation in Malaya is in no way comparable with that in Crete. There is no information to suggest that any officer responsible for the defence of these aerodromes has failed in his duty. As regards the last part of the Question, the Army is responsible for aerodrome defence in Burma.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the amount of defence that was provided at these aerodromes in Malaya?

Mr. Sandys: Full information is naturally not yet available, but, as far as we know, every effort was made, within the resources available, to defend these aerodromes, and I regret the suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's question that officers have failed in their duty.

Mr. Shinwell: Were the resources adequate? If not, why not? May we have an answer to that question?

Military Spokesmen, Cairo.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the name of the military spokesman in Cairo?

Mr. Sandys: It is not the normal practice to disclose the names of individual members of military staffs. However, in view of the attention which this matter has received in the House I propose to make an exception in the present case. The two officers who have ably discharged the difficult duties of military spokesmen in Cairo are Brigadier E. J. Shearer and Colonel C. D. Quilliam.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

Railings (Milk Marketing Board).

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply what steps he is taking, in view of the urgency consequent upon changed conditions, to acquire immediately all unnecessary metal railings for war purposes; whether, to this end, he will withdraw the scheduling by local authorities and so avoid the delay which this has permitted; and why, in particular, has no dismantling yet been made of the ornamental rails surrounding the offices of the Milk Marketing Board, to which his attention has been previously drawn?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The acquisition of unnecessary railings has been undertaken on behalf of the Ministry of Supply by the Ministry of Works and Buildings, and a systematic programme of recovery has been arranged from which substantial results are being obtained. Methods for expediting the scheduling of railings by local authorities are being investigated. As regards the last part of the Question, these railings will be dealt with when a clearance scheme for the district operates. It is impracticable to deal with special cases.

Major Lyons: Is it not possible to arrange this scheme in some better way so that local residents are not asked to surrender their railings at a time when the Milk Marketing Board during the war are erecting and painting their rails? Will the Minister take steps to remedy this position which ought never to have been created?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. and gallant Friend must bear in mind that transport is very limited and it is not always practicable to administer these schemes as one would like. Moreover we do not take the railings down here and there, but we move from district to district.

Major Lyons: Is not the Minister aware that private residents were asked by circular for the removal of the railings from their houses while the Milk Marketing Board were erecting railings around their property? Will he take steps so that in the national interest this really ludicrous position is ended?

CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS (CIRCULARS).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Parlialiamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether, in view of the lack of supervision now being exercised by St. Thomas's and other hospitals in the sending out of circulars with the consequent wasteful expenditure of time, money and paper, he will now prohibit such circulation?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I do not feel we should be justified in prohibiting charitable circulars altogether, and I am sure we can rely upon the co-operation of charitable institutions in avoiding any waste of paper.

Mr. Wakefield: Will the Minister consider instituting an inquiry into the method of sending out these various circulars so as to avoid so many being sent to people now deceased, or to old addresses? Cannot what happened in my own case be avoided? A circular was sent by St. Thomas's Hospital to my grandmother who has been dead for nearly four years asking to purchase her land, although she never owned any land in her life.

Mr. Macmillan: We are aware of the desirability of saving paper, but I would not like to make it impossible for these staffs to carry on their task of collecting for charity.

Mr. Mathers: Is not much paper wasted in the publication of filthy so-called literature?

SYNTHETIC RUBBER.

Commander King-Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether, in view of the fact


that 86 per cent. of the world's supply of raw rubber is produced in the East Indies and Malaya, he is taking steps to establish factories for the manufacture of synthetic rubber, either in this country or the United States of America?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: My Noble Friend is fully alive to the necessity of adjusting the supply and consumption of rubber by the extended use of substitutes for natural rubber and other means, and the method suggested will not be lost sight of.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

LIFE OF MARK TWAIN (BROADCAST).

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of Information whether he has considered the effect of the broadcast of a so-called autobiography of Mark Twain on 14th December on the relations between this country and the United States of America; and whether he has taken any steps with the British Broadcasting Corporation on the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that our relations with the United States have been prejudiced in any way by this broadcast, which was based entirely on facts drawn from Mark Twain's own autobiography.

Mr. Douglas: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the script in this case?

Mr. Thurtle: I have read the script, and I think there is no ground for the hon. Member's fear that this production may injure our relations with America.

Mr. Silverman: Has not the hon. Gentleman got into enough trouble already by reading scripts and then interfering?

RELIGIOUS PLAYS (BROADCASTING).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Information whether he is taking steps to revise the script of the series of plays on the life of Jesus, which are announced to be broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation from 21st December, in the children's hour, so as to avoid offence to Christian feeling?

Mr. Thurtle: No, Sir. It is not the function of my right hon. Friend to exercise jurisdiction over religious plays by

the B.B.C., but he has shown the hon Member's Question to the B.B.C., and they have referred the plays once more to their Religious Committee which meets under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Winchester and contains representatives of the principal Churches in this country.

Sir P. Hurd: Are any steps being taken by the B.B.C. to prevent broadcasts, especially in the children's hour, that are offensive to Christian people?

Mr. Thurtle: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a delicate question of good taste. I think the committee referred to ought to be able to give competent advice on the subject.

Mr. Gallacher: Could not the Parliamentary Secretary, who is an expert on this subject, look through the manuscript?

GERMAN ATROCITIES (PUBLICITY).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Information what steps he is taking to supplement the valuable lectures, given by Mr. Bernard Newman of his Department, to make more widely known to the people of this country the atrocities committed by the Germans in the occupied territories of Europe?

Mr. Thurtle: It is the constant endeavour of the Ministry by broadcasts, leaflets and other means, to familiarise the British people with conditions in Europe under German rule. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would give me any particular suggestions he may have in mind.

Mr. Wakefield: Would the hon. Gentle-man consider the wider circulation of the book issued by the Polish Republic upon the subject of the German occupation of Poland, and of similar authenticated books?

Mr. Thurtle: The Minister is prepared to consider all useful suggestions in that direction.

ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (ENCOURAGEMENT OF REVOLT).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Minister of Information whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage revolt in occupied Europe, irrespective of what form that revolt may take?

Mr. Thurtle: It would not be in the public interest to give the information which the right hon. Gentleman requires.

Mr. Wedgwood: Does my hon. Friend realise the value to our cause of every revolt against oppression, and in considering this question will he have regard to something beyond the immediate tragedy to the people concerned, and to the value of a good example?

Mr. Thurtle: With the utmost good will I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am unable to add anything to my original answer.

CHANNEL ISLANDS (ECONOMIC CONDITIONS).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding conditions under which British subjects are living in the Channel Islands?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): Such information as my right hon. Friend has, suggests that the economic situation is difficult, but it does not indicate that the population of the islands is being molested by the German garrison.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not true that a state of real starvation exists there, through the people not being given enough to eat by the Germans?

Mr. Law: No, Sir, I think that is an exaggeration of what is happening. There is no evidence to show that conditions in the Channel Islands are as bad as in other territories occupied by the Germans. Our sources of information are, however, extremely scanty.

Mr. Mander: What channel of communication is made use of—the Red Cross, or some neutral Power?

Mr. Law: We do get some messages from the Red Cross through Geneva.

Mr. Mander: Is that all?

Sir A. Knox: Did not a boy who escaped the other day from the Channel Islands say that the allowance of bread was only five ounces a week?

ABYSSINIA (ITALIAN SUBJECTS).

Captain Strickland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an assurance that, so far as is possible, no Italian man accused of

deeds of cruelty and oppression contrary to the usage and custom of war, committed against inhabitants of Ethiopia, will be included in any scheme for evacuation from that country until after evidence has been taken and, where necessary, custody in British control can be maintained?

Mr. Law: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

DAMAGED HOUSE, SWINDON (COMPENSATION).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that an omnibus belonging to the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company, in February of this year, damaged the home of two old people, Mr. and Mrs. J. Tuckwell, at 40, Oxford Road, Swindon, and that the company refuse to pay for the damage done; and whether he will see that the damage these old people have suffered through no fault of their own is made good by the company?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): We have no power to require compensation to be paid for damage in a case of this sort, if indeed damages are payable. I will, however, make inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is satisfied that India's capacity to produce aircraft is fully employed; whether any offers or applications by Indian firms to produce aircraft have been declined; and, if so, on what grounds?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Montague): My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible for me to disclose details of production plans, but I can assure him that although technical considerations limit India's capacity to produce aircraft, substantial orders have been placed there. The offer of one firm to produce aircraft was declined, after careful investigation, as the project


appeared unlikely to be satisfactory. It is hoped, however, that this firm will undertake alternative work.

Mr. Silverman: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that no political or Imperial considerations are being allowed to interfere with the production of aircraft in India?

Mr. Montague: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Granville: The hon. Gentleman says that orders have been given; can he say that production is proceeding satisfactorily?

Mr. Montague: Orders have been given to one firm by the Government of India; they are producing trainers and bombers, and I believe the work is going on very satisfactorily.

CIVIL DEFENCE.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is satisfied that the Civil Defence in India, especially the Home Guard section, is organised and equipped in a manner likely to be effective in case of need?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) on the subject of Home Guard and Civil Defence preparations in India. I have no doubt that all practicable measures are being taken to strengthen the existing services.

REFUGEE ORGANISATIONS (GRANTS).

Mrs. Tate: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give a list of the, approximately, 120 smaller refugee organisations to whom £83,691 has been granted between 1st June, 1940, and 31st October last, stating the sum that each has received; and whether there has been independent or Governmental supervision and audit of the funds placed at the disposal of refugee organisations?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I will send my hon. Friend a list of the organisations

referred to in the first part of her Question. The grants are payable through the Central Committee for Refugees, which is responsible for seeing that the organisations assisting refugees comply with the conditions on which the grant is paid, including a condition that the accounts must be properly audited.

NAVAL RATINGS (LOSS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY).

Mrs. Tate: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to provide any measure of compensation to naval ratings for the loss of their personal property when such loss is due to enemy action?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): Provision is made in the Regulations for the payment of compensation to naval ratings for necessary articles of uniform clothing and equipment, etc., essential for their duties, when lost or damaged either afloat or ashore as a result of enemy action. No compensation is payable for personal articles of a non-Service character, but when such articles are lost by enemy action on shore they are covered by the War Damage Act. Men keep personal articles of a non-Service character on board ship at their own risk, and they are advised to insure them.

BRICK INDUSTRY (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. Doland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether the Report of the Committee on the Brick Industry has been received?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): A first interim report has been received and is now under consideration.

Mr. Doland: When is that report likely to be published?

Mr. Hicks: The matter is being considered, but it is only an interim report.

Mr. Doland: Will the usual report be published?

Mr. Hicks: That is being considered.

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (COST LIMIT).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, in cases where the owner of any piece of building construction, whose total cost does not exceed £100, uses for that work material which is in his own possession, the £100 is deemed to include such material?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir.

MILITARY SERVICE (STUDENTS).

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will take action to allay the concern felt by teachers that, while boys taking a scientific course involving only a pass degree get exemption till July, 1942, with a further year at a university, honours students in non-scientific subjects are to be called up much sooner regardless of the fact that their qualifications may enable them to be more useful to the war effort?

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to anxiety aroused by the Memorandum of Guidance, recently issued by the Board to headmasters, with regard to the position of boys who are studying non-scientific subjects with a view to scholarship examinations; and, whether arrangements can be made to permit such boys who attain to scholarship standards to complete their period of study at school and have the opportunity of a year's course at the university, under approved conditions, before being called up for military service?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): The need of the Armed Forces and of war industries for the service of persons with scientific and technical qualifications is very great. This consideration has been the sole factor in deciding that boys at school and young men at universities, who are due to register during the present academic year, and who are studying scientific and technical subjects shall have their calling-up deferred for a period if the appropriate Joint Recruiting Board so recommends. My right hon. Friend regrets the interruption of the educational careers of those

who are studying non-scientific subjects, but he would not feel justified in pressing that these students should, in general, be treated differently from other young men. It has, however, been decided that a boy studying non-scientific subjects who is taking a scholarship examination during the present academic year shall at any rate be allowed to remain at school until he has taken that examination.

Mr. Harvey: Are not students who are taking modern languages, for instance, as useful to the war effort as those who are taking a pass degree in science?

Mr. Ede: That is a matter of opinion, and those who are competent to judge and who have been consulted have not reached that conclusion.

WAR INDUSTRIES (NATIONALISATION).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Prime Minister what proposals for the nationalisation of war industries have been submitted to the Government; and whether the House will be given an opportunity to debate them before a decision is reached?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): Various schemes of this general character are, of course, from time to time publicly canvassed or suggested in Debate, but there is no kind of list that I could usefully supply, nor do I think that any special discussion is called for at this moment.

Mr. Stewart: With regard to the proposals put to the Government by a political party of this House, will the right hon. Gentleman repeat the undertaking given by the Minister of Labour on 4th December that all such proposals must first come before the House?

Mr. Attlee: I would refer the hon. Member to the speech made by the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Stewart: Is that pledge repeated by the Government?

Mr. Silverman: Under the Act which we passed 18 months ago, is it not the case that the Government, if they thought fit, could take any such action as they thought necessary without first having a general Debate in the House?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, I think the hon. Member is quite right but the question asked by my hon. Friend below the Gangway was directed towards the procedure followed by this House.

Sir Percy Harris: Is not the position in each case judged on its merits, and when it is in the public interest to take over a particular industry the Government have actually the power to do it now?

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right; there are many instances in which the Government have taken action.

Mr. Thorne: Will you consider the socialisation and not the nationalisation of industry?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask a further question, because it is not clear where we stand? Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat the assurance of the Minister of Labour, regarding general proposals coming from this House for the nationalisation of war industries, that all such proposals must be considered by the House before they are considered by the Government?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think my hon. Friend is correctly interpreting what my right hon. Friend said. It is not the custom of this House that the Government, when they make themselves responsible for any question of policy, should first bring it up in the House.

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry to press the point, but it is important. The Minister of Labour stated that on a vital question of that kind all such proposals "will have to be put forward in the House," and that is the assurance I am asking to be repeated.

Mr. Attlee: I do not think that is a correct interpretation.

Mr. Stewart: It is a correct interpretation. I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member need not worry; the Government have no intention of doing anything.

FAR EASTERN AFFAIRS (MR. DUFF COOPER'S APPOINTMENT).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard

to the Mission to the Far East, entrusted to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in July last?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been appointed Resident Minister of Cabinet rank at Singapore for Far Eastern Affairs where he will preside over a War Council. He will serve under, and report directly to, the War Cabinet, and will perform functions in the Far East broadly similar to those performed by the Minister of State at Cairo. Thus, he will relieve the Commanders-in-Chief, so far as possible, of various extraneous responsibilities with which they have hitherto been burdened, and he will facilitate the settlement on the spot of certain matters which would otherwise have to be referred to several Departments at home.

Mr. Granville: In view of the criticism in the Dominion Press of the shortage of aircraft in Malaya, may I ask whether the Commonwealth of Australia were consulted before that appointment was made, and whether they agreed to it?

Mr. Attlee: The Government of Australia are represented on the Council over which my right hon. Friend presides.

Mr. Granville: Was the Commonwealth consulted before that appointment was made?

Mr. Attlee: I must have notice of that Question.

AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SER VICE (ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DIRECTOR).

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): On Wednesday evening I became aware that there was a Question on the Order Paper for answer on the first Sitting Day after 21st December which reflected upon the conduct of an officer serving under my authority:
[To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that Mrs. Knox, Commandant of the Auxiliary Territorial Service, recently addressed 14 Auxiliary Territorial Service officers in Edinburgh; that she was insulting in her attitude; that, when officers asked questions, they were told to shut up; and what disciplinary steps he proposes to take.]
I am aware that it is contrary to the practice of this House to anticipate Answers to Questions which may be put


by hon. Members, and I therefore communicated with the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) who had put this particular Question on the Paper, and he has been good enough to withdraw it, thus enabling me to make a statement this morning. I took the view that a charge of this sort ought to be answered immediately, and that it is not only fair to the officer concerned, but, what is more important, necessary in the interest of the magnificent Service of which Mrs. Knox is the Director, that the matter should be disposed of before the Recess.
It is, in my view, contrary to the general interest that individual officers in the employment of the State should be pilloried by name without the opportunity of defending themselves or of being defended. I would remind the House that it is open to the Press to give publicity to such charges once a Question appears on the Order Paper. In this case wide publicity has been given to this Question. I desire to say with all the emphasis at my command that I have the fullest confidence in the Director of the Auxiliary Territorial Service and that I accept, without qualification, her personal assurance that the words alleged to have been used were not, to the best of her recollection, ever used.
After what I have said I do not believe that any sensible person will attach the least importance to a story of this kind. I therefore do not propose to inquire into the question whether the words were actually used, or into any other aspect of the hon. Member's Question, nor do I intend to take any disciplinary action against the Director herself or against the officers, who must, I am sure, have been the unwilling source of this frivolous allegation.

Sir Patrick Hannon: May I ask whether the time has not come when these malign rumours against the A.T.S. should be squelched once and for all?

Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that all those interested in the women's Services will be deeply grateful for his prompt action in revealing the truth regarding these allegations? Also, anyone who has had dealings with Mrs. Knox will realise immediately that it is quite impossible that she should, under any circumstances, be insulting or rude.

Mr. Shinwell: Without casting any reflection on the Commandant referred to, or the Services generally, or the officers who are alleged to be implicated in this matter, do I understand from what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that on no occasion will he consider a statement which is made reflecting on the conduct of officers under his command, that any allegation of that kind will not receive his consideration?

Captain Margesson: Most certainly not. I should certainly consider any reflection made, examine it from every angle, and satisfy myself with regard to it.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give notice to the hon. Member who put down the Question?

Captain Margesson: I said so.

Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that the very worst way to kill an unfounded rumour is to refuse to inquire into a specific allegation merely on the assurance of the person concerned that, to the best of her recollection, those words were not used?

Captain Margesson: I have said that I am completely satisfied with the assurance given.

Mr. Silverman: The question is not whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly satisfied but whether everyone else is. Does he realise that before the Question was put down it is probable that someone made that allegation and believed it to be true? If he now accepts, without evidence, someone's assurance to the contrary, that is casting a reflection on others, which is bound to have a very bad effect in the Force itself.

Captain Margesson: The hon. Member will see that it is not a substantiated charge. It is merely repeating in the form of a Question something that has been said.

Mr. Silverman: The question is whether it was said or not.

Captain Strickland: On a point of Order. Seeing that Members of this House are supposed to have in their possession enough information to warrant the putting down of a Question, may I ask you, Sir, whether there is any means of calling upon any Member of this House to vouch,


in front of a Committee or otherwise, for his reasons or grounds for supposing such a Question to be true?

Mr. Speaker: I have often been asked, not exactly that question, but about allegations being made in Questions. I have always maintained that the Rule is, that any Member putting a Question which contains allegations should satisfy himself of and take the responsibility for the accuracy of his charge. I do not think I can go further that that.

Mr. Garro Jones: On that point of Order. May I put before you, Sir, this aspect of the matter? The Answer which the Secretary of State for War has just given casts, by implication, a reflection upon the hon. Member who put this Question on the Paper. Therefore, I should like to ask whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has acquainted himself with the grounds upon which the hon. Member acted, or whether he has merely taken, as against the hon. Member's Question, the ex-parte assurance of the officer against whom the charge is made?

Captain Margesson: I have also seen the record of the meeting to which I believe this refers. There is no suggestion in that record that those words were used.

Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. On an occasion like this is it not the duty of the hon. Member who has put down a Question of this kind to attend the House when the matter is under discussion?

Mr. Speaker: The Question is down for the first Sitting of the House after 21st December, not for to-day.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said he has seen the record of the meeting. Is not that now a document which the House is entitled to have?

Mr. Gallacher: Further to the point of Order. A very serious allegation has been made against the Commandant of the A.T.S., and in reply to that very serious allegation the Secretary of State has made a serious allegation against the Member of this House responsible for the Question. I ask whether it is not absolutely essential that an inquiry of some kind should take place, in order to exonerate either the hon. Member or the Commandant of the A.T.S.?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question for me to answer.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Further to the point of Order. May I ask whether the Minister is aware that he has produced no more evidence than the hon. Member who put down the Question?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he can state the Business for the next Sitting Day?

Mr. Attlee: On the next Sitting Day, Questions will be taken, and, if necessary, a statement on the war situation will be made on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

SECRET SESSIONS (REPORTING).

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I ask for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, of a suggestion relative to Secret Sessions. Would it not be desirable that there should be a record taken by an appropriate number of Official Reporters, sworn to secrecy, of the proceedings of Secret Sessions, and that the record made should remain in your custody and be available to Members of the House of Commons if they desired to refer to it, under conditions of secrecy, of course? I bring this suggestion to your notice because I understand it is the practice that, for secret Government conferences at the present time, there is a note taken which is kept in secret custody.
Further, I understood, as I suppose most hon. Members understood, that it was open to a Member who was present at a Secret Session to discuss what had occurred at that Secret Session with another hon. Member who did not happen to be present. I understand now that that is not so, that it is not strictly in order for a Member who was present to discuss what has taken place with another Member who was not. It is important that Members of Parliament and members of the Government who may perhaps, for one reason or another, not be able to be present at Secret Sessions should have an accurate account of what occurred. At present, they must rely upon a possibly incomplete report of


what has been remembered by a Minister who has been in the House. No written report may be made by any Member of this House. It is obviously essential that absent Cabinet Ministers, or Members of the Government, should have an accurate report of what took place. Would it not be possible for this report to be taken, for it to remain in your custody, and for it to be available for reference at any time, under conditions of secrecy?

Mr. Thorne: Is it true that any Member takes either a longhand note or a shorthand note for anyone's information?

Mr. Speaker: It is not an accredited report of the Debate. With regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), this matter of Secret Sessions was fully debated in the House some time ago, and most of these questions were then considered by the House. If the hon. and gallant Member asks my opinion, I should say that a Secret Session ought to be really secret. My experience of secrets is that the fewer loopholes there are, the better, and the more likely the matters are to remain secret. As regards the actual procedure which the hon. and gallant Member suggests, that is not for me but for the House to decide; and it is certainly not a matter which the House could decide on the spur of the moment.

Sir A. Southby: In order to clear up doubts, in my own mind, at any rate, can you say whether it is in order for a Member who was present to discuss what happened with another Member who was not present? That is very important.

Mr. Speaker: If I remember accurately, that question was discussed when the subject was raised in the House previously, and I believe that it was understood that a Member should not discuss what happened.

Sir A. Southby: With great respect, does that not create a position of great difficulty for Members of the Government, who might, for reasons which they were unable to control, be absent from a Secret Session at which matters were discussed of which it might be essential that they should be told? Under that Ruling, it would not be in order for anything which took place to be reported to an absent member of the Government.

Mr. Maxton: I understand, Sir, that you have now the responsibility of making some record of the proceedings at a Secret Session of the House, and of making some report. Is there any limit to the extent of that report which you may make on the proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: It has been decided that on special occasions it is my duty to make a special report, after consultation with certain Members of the House. I am reminded that that is so in the case of a Division taking place in Secret Session. The House has put upon me the burden of making a statement as to what the Division was about.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: When we discussed the whole basis of Secret Sessions two years ago, in the earlier stages of the war, you gave a Ruling, Sir, that it was quite competent for a Member of this House to disclose to another Member what had taken place at a Secret Sitting. If that is not the position, I see great difficulties. If the Prime Minister cannot attend to-day, how will the Lord Privy Seal inform him of what took place? Perhaps you would be good enough to give a definite Ruling on that matter?

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Would it be possible, on an important occasion like this, for those Front Bench statesmen who are making references to what we are discussing to speak a little louder, as we cannot hear anything that they say?

Mr. Speaker: There appears to be a record of what I said on 12th December, 1939, on the question of Secret Sessions. The question was then put to me:
What would be the position of a Member who was present in the House if he conversed with a Member who was not present in a tone of voice loud enough to be heard by somebody else?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1939; col. 1033, Vol. 355.]
The answer was that that was a question which I could not answer.

Major Vyvyan Adams: This question is very important to some of us who cannot be here frequently nowadays. May I be informed whether it is in order for a Member who was present at a Secret Session to discuss what has passed with a Member who was not present? As far as I recollect, Sir, you gave a further Ruling on that occasion that it was in order for a Member of this House to discuss with a Member of the other House what had


passed during a Secret Session of the House of Commons. That being so, I should have thought that there was certainly Privilege existing in a Member who had been present to reveal privately to another Member who had not been present what had passed in the course of a Secret Session.

Mr. Speaker: The Member has a right to be present, but he does not exercise that right, and is not present. The hon. and gallant Member asks me whether an hon. Member who was present could discuss what took place with another Member who was not present. I said that I thought that the fewer loopholes there were for making a Secret Session not secret, the better. Personally, I should say that it would be much better that we should not discuss what took place at a Secret Session with anyone who was not present, although he might be, a Member of this House.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I understood, from our former discussions on this subject, that the essential point was to keep these matters secret to Members of this House, as against members of the general public, and that they were not secret between Members of the House, provided that they took all precautions to ensure that no one else should hear them; because it is impossible at times for Members of the Government to be present, and, for the effect of the Debate to be apprehended by Ministers, and the points raised to be brought before them, it is essential that there should be communication between Ministers on these subjects. I submit, therefore, that, subject to all proper precautions, it should be held that it is open to Members to discuss these matters among themselves, and to tell other Members what has taken place.

Sir A. Southby: Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling, the Government would give consideration to the proposal that there should be a shorthand note taken and kept in secret? A very important point arises. It is essential that absent members of the Government should have an accurate account of what happens in Secret Session, and in no other way can they get it.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that we are having a very important Debate,

covering a number of subjects and suggestions for the various Service Ministers, will a member of the War Cabinet be here to take an accurate note and to report what has happened to Ministers who may not be present?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Do all these preliminaries mean that something secret is going to be said in a Secret Session?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I want to ask this question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that communications should not take place between Members who are present at a Secret Session in the Chamber and those who are not.

Hon. Members: No.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is not that your Ruling, Sir, as it stands?

Mr. Speaker: I was asked my opinion on this matter, and I gave it. I understand that it is certainly the wish of the House that Members who have not been present can discuss what took place with Members who have been present. If that is the wish of the House, I have no objection.

Major Adams: This is a different point, Mr. Speaker. Is your earlier Ruling confirmed or cancelled that Members of this House who are present at a Secret Session enjoy the Privilege of discussing that which takes place with Members of another place?

Mr. Speaker: That is enlarging the subject. I think we had better leave it at that.

Mr. Mander: Does not it really follow from what the Lord Privy Seal said just now that, if members of the Government who are in another place are to be informed of what takes place in Secret Session, permission must be granted for communication between Members of this House and Members of another place?

Mr. Speaker: I am quite agreeable that the House should have its own way in this matter.

INDIA (FEDERAL COURT JUDGES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed.—[Bill 12.]

Mr. LEES-SMITH

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): Mr. Speaker, since we met yesterday the hand of death has suddenly and unexpectedly removed from our midst one who only this week was taking a prominent part in our proceedings, a man who had, I think, the respect of every Member and the affection of all those who knew him well. In Mr. Lees-Smith we have lost a colleague whom we could ill spare in these difficult and dangerous times. He brought to the service of this House and of his country many fine qualities of heart and mind. His kindliness, unselfishness, tolerance and sense of humour endeared him to his colleagues. He gave many years of devoted service to the causes in which he believed. For 40 years, first at Ruskin College, Oxford, and then at the London School of Economics, he taught generations of students the principles of democratic government. For the greater part of 30 years he practised those principles in Parliament. He was a great lover of this House and was deeply versed in its history and procedure. Few men better understood, not merely the forms, but the living tradition and spirit of the greatest democratic Assembly in the world. Many members of the Labour party will recall with gratitude the help which he gave them so freely when they were new Members.
While he was a specialist on constitutional subjects, the range of his knowledge and interests was very wide. He held office as Postmaster-General and as President of the Board of Education. He served on the Indian Round Table Conference and on many committees. He was a keen and informed student on military problems. To every task he brought diligence, knowledge, quick intelligence, and a power of clear and lucid exposition. Ever since the formation of this Government he had been acting as Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour party, an exacting task which he performed with tact and judgment. He was constant in his attendance on these benches and was often the spokesman of the unofficial Members in their relation-


ship with the Government, and in fact carried out with general good will duties essential to the functioning of our Parliamentary system which are usually performed by the Leader of the Opposition. This was indeed an example of that power of adaptability displayed by a trained democracy which was so dear to the heart of our late colleague. He has been taken from us in the fullness of his powers. We mourn his loss. The House will, I know, wish to join with me in expressing our deep sympathy with his widow and family in their bereavement.

Earl Winterton: The Patronage Secretary has been good enough to suggest—and I am very grateful for the suggestion—that I should say a word in support of what the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal has just said, and I desire to express the sense of deep personal loss and grief, for my right hon. Friend was a very dear personal friend of mine. On public grounds, I deplore his death, for he was the type of man needed to keep the lustre of this ancient Assembly burnished brightly. He joined great ability and personal charm to the highest sense of duty and honour. It is a sad and sombre thought for those of us who have been almost a lifetime in this House to realise that the multitude of those who have once been one's fellow Members, many of them men with whom one was on terms of Christian-name intimacy, and have passed away, would fill the Benches of this House twice over. May they, political foes and friends alike, be resting in peace, and may we, their successors, in these years of peril for our country, be worthy to carry on the great traditions of this Commons House of Parliament.

Sir Percy Harris: May I, on behalf of my hon. Friends and as a very old friend of the late Mr. Lees-Smith, add a few words of tribute to his memory? The news last night came to me as a great shock, as I believe it came to all Members of this House. Only last Tuesday I had a friendly talk with him, and it was typical of many talks I have had with him in the years gone by. He was a most lovable man, a real friend and a wise counsellor. I have known him perhaps longer than most Members of this House. I remember that during the last war,

when it was not the practice for Members to join in the ranks, he joined up as a private without any fuss or any talk, largely inspired by a sense of duty. That really has been the inspiration of all his work in this House. When there was a change in the constitution of the Government in the middle of the war, he had to take on new and most difficult work without precedent, but he discharged it with so much skill, tact and wisdom that he soon won the confidence of all Members of this House, and any criticism which might have been made rapidly disappeared. I also remember him as a very fine President of the Board of Education. If he had any particular hobby, education was his particular interest. In the short time that he was President of the Board he showed great promise and wisdom, and for years after he gave us the advantage of wise speeches on the whole problem of education. We shall miss him, and we would like to convey to his wife and sons our sympathy in this sudden loss of a good House of Commons man and a great Parliamentarian.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I and my hon. Friends on these Benches would like to be associated with what has been so appositely said and, still more, with what is so universally felt on this occasion. Mr. Lees-Smith served Parliament with great public spirit. He performed a difficult—one would have thought originally an impossible—task with exceptional devotion. In all our relationships, both public and private, both in peace and in war, he was loyal, considerate, industrious and efficient. We shall long see him in our mind's eye rising from that place. May his family be consoled.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to add just a few words to the tributes which have been paid from all sections of the House. I was a very dear friend of Mr. Lees-Smith, who, only a few days ago, was with us, helping us with his wise counsel and who now, in this very sudden way, has been taken from our midst. I think that perhaps the most outstanding characteristic of Mr. Lees-Smith was his great modesty and his high single-mindedness. I, in the course of a long and intimate association with him, do not remember a single time, either in private or in public, when he has ever talked at all of his own personal


position; his sole concern has been for the public good. I was one of those to whom the Lord Privy Seal referred when he said that many of my party have sat at his feet to learn the procedure of this House, and I can certainly say that Mr. Lees-Smith's knowledge of procedure was unique. Of the very difficult Rules, and the application of them, with which we are familiar he had a wide knowledge, and that knowledge was only a part of the knowledge he had of a very great variety of matters. We had the value of his wise counsel in our private and public affairs, and it is with the deepest regret that I feel his loss—the loss of him as a man and friend and as a wise counsellor to whom we had looked to guide us through these very difficult, and other, years.

SECRET SESSION.

Notice taken, that Strangers were present.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89,put the Question,

"That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

The following appeared in the Votes and Proceedings:

Resolved, That the remainder of this day's Sitting be a Secret Session.—[Mr. Attlee.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. James Stuart.]

And it being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Major Dugdale.]

Adjourned accordingly till Thursday, 8th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 18th December.